Richard Hil, Kristen Lyons and Fern Thompsett (2021), Transforming Universities in the Midst of Global Crisis: A University for the Common Good London: Routledge, 180pp., ISBN 978-0-367-897-833

Societies have historically entrusted universities with a critical responsibility – to prepare communities to face social, environmental and economic crises (p. 63). This book argues that colonial underpinnings and the embrace of neoliberal philosophies have left higher education ineffective in addressing the world's most pressing problems. The authors explain that this reality was glaringly evident during the COVID-19 outbreak and that the inadequacy began long before the pandemic.

The book begins by explaining how colonial foundations and neoliberal permeation have contributed to its inability to respond to crises. It then highlights various approaches by institutions and individuals in addressing recent crises, primarily through skin-deep branding efforts or alternative academies. This review will conclude with a personal reflection on these concepts as well as envisioning the possible future of higher education.

The authors explain that higher education's colonial foundations include a commitment to Western/Eurocentric, white male-dominated worldviews that centre on certainty, permanence, growth, progress and dominion (p. 19), for the cultivation of empire (p. 81), and lack alternative sources of wisdom and knowledge. The familiar master-peasant arrangement situates the teacher as an expert in objective truth, while the student plays the role of obedient subject striving toward measurable proficiency (p. 83). In one example, the Australian curriculum positions Aboriginal people as the known rather than as knowers (p. 83). While similar arrangements are common in universities worldwide, the authors shine a light on a few ‘alternative’ institutions which are changing the narrative by placing value on more expansive and inclusive forms of wisdom and knowledge.

In addition to colonial underpinnings, the book argues that neoliberalism has permeated universities via the marketisation and corporatisation of higher education, shaping the structure and complexion of administrative management, teaching, research, and other aspects of university life. This neoliberal mindset has shaped current structures of administration and leadership. For example, the decreased public funding of higher education, a loss of international student tuition dollars, and the proliferation of ranking systems have led to cut-throat competition between institutions. In response we have seen universities shift toward administrative models typically reserved for for-profit businesses. For example, Benjamin Ginsberg (2011) points to the rapid expansion of mid- and upper-level administrative positions, far exceeding the hiring of new faculty and other staff.

This shift toward university-as-business has centred revenue expansion as a chief concern, resulting in the common practice of recruiting corporate sector executives. The authors explain that these leaders tend to prioritise brand differentiation and institutional distinctiveness when making budget and advertising decisions (p. 24).

In addition to corporate-style leadership structures, we're also seeing neoliberal ideas transforming academic priorities: ‘the modern university's links with the corporate sector and industries like mining, aviation, biotechnology, national “defense” and big philanthropy further highlights its neoliberal credentials’ (p. 27).

It can be argued this neoliberal permeation has choked out some traditional academic values such as critical thinking and intellectual exploration in favour of a factory model that produces career-ready graduates to be funnelled toward pre-determined industries in need of specialised labour. Higher education's close ties to industry are linked to a current fixation on STEM subjects and disciplinary specialisation, resulting in barriers between staff, faculty, students and the community. This overwhelmingly popular emphasis on specialisation has drowned out voices in the wilderness such as Wendell Berry (1977) who implores us to address challenges by emphasising interdisciplinary approaches, leveraging generalists, and respecting local genius.

Regarding fundraising, universities increasingly lean on strategies to engage private businesses and corporate-funded foundations. Deals are struck that result in private corporation (and family name) branding on buildings, scholarships, laboratories, curricula, courses and programmes. This private-donor development has also infiltrated job descriptions for staff and faculty, evidenced in the prevalence of ‘fundraising’ and ‘partnership development’ functions as core responsibilities, which pulls time away from student-centred teaching and support.

Naturally, students are experiencing the fallout from top-heavy administrative structures, industry-approved majors, and an emphasis on career preparation: ‘for many of today's students, the modern university experience is instrumental (aimed at job attainment and career), dissociative (studying rather than experiencing), atomized and terminally irrelevant and boring’ (p. 141).

Factors contributing to students’ disenchantment include increased faculty-to-student ratios, the mediocre quality of online course delivery (p. 25), and a shift toward viewing students as consumers and academic professionals as service providers (p. 30). The authors emphasise that international students continue to be valued primarily as income streams (p. 48) rather than appreciated for their unique contribution to the community. This growing dependence on international student revenue was severely threatened by restricted travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring institutions to reconcile acute budget deficiencies.

The book then shifts toward ways in which institutions and individuals have responded to crises in recent years. They quote (p. 47) an overarching warning: ‘If universities are to have relevance and purpose in the face of all this, perhaps playing a more active role in steering us through turbulent and desperate times, then – like other key public/private institutions – they cannot remain stuck in the countervailing inertia of the neoliberal order’ (de Oliveira Andreotti et al. 2018). The reality is that most universities have indeed remained stuck in the inertia of the neoliberal order evidenced by skin-deep strategies such as greenwashing and branding efforts.

Some top-level university administrators are beginning to acknowledge the noisy voices of students, staff and faculty demanding reform related to climate change, diversity, and other matters, but their response strategies resemble corporate attempts to save face and retain paying customers; band-aids, smokescreens and shiny distractions rather than systemic and meaningful change.

Popular efforts include soft or minor changes that ‘avoid disrupting universities’ dependencies upon carbon-intensive industries for their incomes’ (p. 67). These green, sustainability and diversity actions treat symptoms rather than cure diseases. Virtue-signalling efforts such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certifications and ‘Green College’ or ‘Ethnic Diversity’ designations show an attempt to be perceived as environmentally or socially responsible, to achieve a more attractive and desirable market position. Furthermore, promoting these arguably shallow initiatives via swelling social media and marketing budgets reveal a surrender to the attention economy rather than a real and tangible response to the serious and consequential crises and concerns we currently face.

Alternatively, there have been some staff and faculty committed to systemic change, evidenced by the formation of alternative institutional structures, approaches and academies:

Many academics and students are walking away from a system they find irrelevant and even nonsensical given the pressing crises that now confront us and the urgent need for rapid change. Others both in and outside the formal academy have taken different routes toward forms of education they consider relevant, necessary, and purposeful. These often constitute a conscious disruption to the values and practices that underpin the modern university and a refusal to engage pedagogies and research agendas that merely parrot dominant narratives. (p. 52)

The authors then paint a picture of the ‘possibility of a university for the common good; one capable of responding with compassion, care and common purpose to the multiple crises we face’ (p. 39). Some resistance efforts include Ecological Universities, Free Universities and Buddhist Universities. Still, other professionals are finding meaningful community and connection through networked, regenerative communities outside of traditional higher education systems (p. 53).

Ecological Universities deprioritise capitalist market-driven initiatives and instead embrace a more holistic view of education and its role in the natural world. They are taking the responsibility of actively responding to climate and other societal emergencies seriously.

Free Universities are a direct protest of the corporatisation of higher education. They emphasise critical thinking, creativity, exploration, slow scholarship and communalism over job readiness, profit and entrepreneurialism (pp. 118, 123): ‘Anyone can learn, Anyone can teach, Informal structure, Credentials as meaningless, The community as learning environment, Linking knowledge and action, Process over content, Low cost and/or free education, Responsiveness to the community's characteristics, and Education for social change’ (p. 115).

Buddhist Universities have been around for centuries and reflect broadly recognised Buddhist philosophies and values: ‘Buddhist universities may support a model of education that infuses knowledge with wisdom, and which fosters a sense of shared purpose among students, including compassionate service to the world’ (p. 69).

In conclusion, this book does an excellent job critiquing the colonial foundations and neoliberal trends that many have been observing in the academy for decades. The authors propose that solutions to upend these current values are incredibly difficult, explaining that ‘decolonization is necessarily messy, non-linear, reiterative and relational, involving people within and beyond academia, and centring humility as much as hope’ (p. 85). We are introduced to a limited number of courageous institutional leaders who are actively resisting colonial and neoliberal influence, sincerely desiring change, and creatively addressing local and global crises at the systemic level. These individuals are working against the grain to steer the ship in new directions. We also learn about many others who have found their home for teaching and learning outside of formal and well-established institutions.

It is generally unrealistic to believe that real and meaningful change will come from those who are profiting from the current corporatised model of higher education. In a parallel example, Anand Giridharadas (2020) describes a similar challenge in the philanthropic world by arguing that the philanthropy community is unable to effectively respond to local and global challenges because corporate-related philanthropists are benefiting from the system that has created the crises. The authors aptly conclude that ‘we must look beyond internal, reformist approaches and instead seek out ideas, practices, and values that exist – and have long existed – beyond the university's walls’ (p. 150). For some of us, this has meant seeking wisdom outside of the academy and recognising that effective teaching, learning, and other holistic educational approaches existed long before our modern systems.

I highly recommend this book to those who want to understand the why behind concerning trends we are seeing in higher education, and especially to those who are interested in contributing to solutions. Ideally, we can strive toward a university community with deep conviction, a concern for the common good and an ability to effectively respond to the real crises we face.

Brodie Theis

University of Cincinnati

Donna Hurford and Andrew Read (2022), Bias-aware Teaching, Learning and Assessment St Albans: Critical Publishing, 104pp., ISBN: 9781914171895

Hurford and Read set out as their rationale an intention to ‘provoke awareness of how conscious and unconscious biases can influence interactions, teaching, learning and assessment at higher education institutions, and how bias at an institutional level is manifested’ (p. 1). Not only are the authors successful in identifying and spotlighting areas of practice prone to bias, but they also provide practical and pragmatic guidance and advice for lecturers, course leaders, educational developers and other staff working in higher education on how take steps towards countering biases at various levels – including, but not limited to, course design, assessment, and even at the structural/institutional level. Chapters address in turn: structural and institutional biases, interactions, course design and content, learning activities and course assessment.

The volume is accessible, well written, and makes excellent use of prompt questions to invite reflection and dialogue on higher education practices. The authors outline a range of strategies likely to be of use in developing awareness towards and countering bias in a range of contexts. There is a strong focus throughout the text on the power of dialogue in developing bias awareness across contexts and as a mechanism for countering bias; one key message from the volume is that one-off interventions aimed at developing insight into bias rarely succeed and, instead, iterative dialogue and coaching approaches can be harnessed to achieve change more holistically. The authors are similarly successful in engaging the reader in professional dialogue as they outline practical strategies for identifying and countering bias in everyday higher education practice at various levels.

Hurford and Read recognise that dialogue is ‘imperfect, flexible, illogical, and, sometimes, revelatory’ (p. 4); chapters from the volume are illuminating and, indeed, at times revelatory. The authors advocate throughout for dialogue as a mechanism suitable for raising awareness of, and tackling, bias in higher education at institutional and strategic levels as well as in teaching, learning, and assessment. Readers are afforded insight into questioning strategies likely to impact on personal and institutional practices, emerging from and through a pragmatic application of John Whitmore's GROW (goal, reality, options, will) coaching model (2017). Summary key takeaways at the end of each chapter offer a refreshingly candid take on the reality of bias in the contexts of teaching, learning, assessment and curriculum and are accompanied by short annotated bibliographies that signpost to recent key interventions aligned to each theme.

The volume as a whole connects closely to ongoing scholarship in the area. The focus on addressing bias in course design and content (Chapter 3) is particularly welcome. The authors spotlight here a range of approaches that can be taken to explore and address how bias can feature to various degrees across curricular content, assessment and teaching and learning strategies. A range of antibias models and toolkits are discussed and examples given as to how these can be implemented in practice and not just in a theoretical framework.

The intended audience for the majority of the volume is clearly the practitioner – both the educational developer keen to enter into reflection-driven dialogue with academic educators and the academic educator keen to develop their practice in countering bias as lived experience in and through teaching, learning, assessment and curriculum. There is a clear focus on the agency of the individual in countering hegemonic viewpoints and on the role of the individual academic/educator in identifying and acting on their own bias awareness at various points throughout the text.

Chapter 6, ‘structural and institutional bias’, departs significantly from the rest of the volume by rather considering how biases grounded and embedded in operations and practices link to all aspects of the institutional ecosystem from marketing and recruitment to pedagogy, resourcing and services. In a particularly candid ‘call out’, the authors highlight the problematic nature of unconscious bias training for individuals and institutions. Colleagues tasked with institutional leadership may wince when confronted with Hurford and Read's incontrovertible assertion that ‘any institution which regards mandatory bias or diversity training as the solution [to bias] is at best deluding itself and at worst risking sustaining rather than addressing bias’ (p. 67).

Perhaps the weakest feature of this otherwise excellent chapter is that many key concerns are dealt with fleetingly: greater narrative linkages would likely strengthen the connections between the materials on institutional and systemic bias (e.g. around the ‘status quo’ bias in hiring practices as a change inhibitor) and how these bias fields inform coherency in the use of grading scales at the institutional level. To my eye, the materials explored here could easily have informed an additional chapter addressing these themes in greater depth. This would most likely substantively support a reader to query and contest ‘major’ areas of bias both through individual action and through building support for whole-institution approaches and interventions. This is a relatively minor gripe, however, in what is probably the most ambitious chapter in a volume that is overall very strong – and this minor criticism certainly should not discourage the reader from engaging with the volume as a whole.

Bias-aware Teaching, Learning and Assessment is a valuable addition to the Critical Practice in Higher Education series, and I have very much enjoyed engaging with the volume. The chapters are likely to afford higher education practitioners a broad range of inclusive strategies likely to be of use in mitigating bias and contributing to the development of a more inclusive higher education landscape looking ahead. The authors raise particularly insightful points around potential biases relating to teacher-student and student-student interactions in their focus on the design of group tasks and on coaching dialogue. I wholeheartedly recommend the volume both in terms of what can be learned about the GROW dialogue technique and its application in practice and certainly in terms of providing a useful introduction to thinking critically about bias at various levels within the higher education ecosystem.

Jonny Johnston

Policy & Research Advisor, Trinity Global, Trinity College Dublin